In the weeks following Election 2012, there has been a lot of complaining and gnashing of teeth from Republicans who were sure they were going to win, yet who came up short. In the "sour grapes" moment of the year, Mitt Romney has even said that Obama won because of the "gifts" he gave to some voters. Those comments from Romney are beneath a man of Romney's stature and obvious gifts, and they don't really answer the question of how Romney lost, especially with a weak economy and high unemployment that usually guarantees a Republican victory. So why did Romney lose Election 2012?
1. Romney lost because the Democrats successfully painted him as rich, white and out of touch with average Americans: This is the same trick that both parties have been using on each other for years. In 2004, Republicans successfully used it against Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Because he is married to Theresa Heinz of the Heinz Ketchup fortune, Kerry was painted as an elitist blue-blood who couldn't relate to average "folks." Never mind that Kerry is a highly decorated Vietnam War hero. His campaign ads, in which he tried to show himself doing regular things such as hunting were tone-deaf and only made the situation worse. In the end, he lost handily to President George W. Bush.
In 2012, it was Romney's turn to be tarred with the "elitist" brush. To be fair, Romney is, for all intents and purposes, a self-made man. He's made millions in business. He managed to get himself elected governor of Massachussets as a Republican, and he was a succesful governor. That's impressive, considering how "blue" a state Massachussets usually is. In a field of candidates trying to outdo themselves as being the most conservative in 2012, Romney was by far the most moderate. He looked and he sounded presidential.
The problem was, Romney never figured out how to talk to average people, or to break down his grand ideas into bite-size, easily digestible pieces. Just like Al Gore in 2000, Romney came across as stiff when speaking and he looked uncomfortable in crowds. He came across as the businessman that he is. He wasn't the kind of guy you could sit and have a beer with in your local bar (a gift shared by both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton). Instead, he looked like the boss you would complain about over those beers.
2. Romney lost because voters couldn't figure out where he stood on the issues: Romney said all the right thngs. He spoke at length about repealing "Obamacare," even though he had fought for and passed a similar program in Massachussets. He criticized Obama about the weak economy and the high unemployment. The problem was, he didn't come across as a strong man of principle, as Ronald Reagan had.
In fact, if you look at his record, Romney came across as quite the opposite. While governor of Massachussets, Romney said he was for gay marriage, or at least civil unions. In fact, he even instructed the county clerks in Massachussets to start issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. When he began running for president, presto! He was strongly against gay marriage. At one time, Romney identified as pro-choice in the abortion debate. As a presidential candidate, he became strongly pro-life.
To be clear, there's nothing wrong with people changing their minds on issues. At one time, I was firmly pro-death penalty. Now, I'm against it. The problem wasn't that Romney changed his mind. It was how he did it. He never came across as someone who had wrestled with the deep moral issues before changing his mind. Instead, he came across as a slightly sleazy political opportunist who would tell voters exactly what they wanted to hear, as long as it won their vote. He came across as the "flip-flopper" that Republicans have detested for years. As a result, voters could never get a clear picture of where Romney stood on the issues, or what he would do if elected.
3. Romney lost because the our nation is changing, and Republicans haven't changed with it: If Election 2012 did anything, it should have showed the national GOP that the message they have relied on since the 1980s just isn't working anymore. In the early 1980s, the GOP hitched its wagon to the "Moral Majority" championed by Jerry Falwell, and later the "Christian Coalition" run by Ralph Reed. Instead of being just the pro-business party, the party of smaller government and lower taxes, Republicans became synonymous with moral issues and religion. They began waging fights against gay marriage and gay rights in general. They fought to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. And they have fought in recent years to stymie promising stem cell research. Over time, moderate and liberal Republicans were driven from the party in the name of ideological purity. Today, it is clearly the extreme wing of the party that is calling the shots.
But guess what? America is not a nation of extremists. In fact, most voters sit somewhere in the middle on political and moral issues. Sure, the GOP enjoys strong support throughout the South and large swaths of the Midwest. But more and more, the polls are showing that increasing numbers of people are in favor of legalizing marijuana and are in favor of same-sex marriage, just to name a couple issues. Americans are becoming more open, while the GOP stubbornly clings to its traditional view on morality.
America is also coming more diverse. Hispanics are growing in number and in political clout. It is estimated that by 2050, if not sooner, they will become the No. 1 ethnic group in America, supplanting whites. Yet, the Republicans continually come across as xenophobes and fearmongers with their push to fence off our southern border and deny the children of illegal aliens a chance at an education and a better life.
Fair or not, that's what Romney represented to millions of people who voted on Nov. 6. Romney wasn't necessarily a terrible candidate (though there have certainly been better). He's a smart, successful man who I believe honestly loves his country. He simply represented a party that is increasingly out of touch with the mainstream.
Hopefully, this Election has woken up the national GOP and given them a clear plan of what they need to do to remain relevant. . Until they abandon the fringe elements of their party and move toward the middle; and until they realize that they are badly out of tune with a rapidly changing America, their defeat in 2012 may be just the beginning of a long stretch in the political wilderness.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Some thoughts on Election 2012
It's Wednesday morning, Nov. 7, 2012, not quite 24 hours after President Barack Obama secured reelection. Finally, we can breathe again. Finally, the endless campaign ads can stop. Finally, we have answered the questions of who will control Congress for the next two years and who will lead this nation for the next four. Now, life can return to normal, right? Not quite.
If one thing became apparent last night, it's that the system that was brilliantly conceived by our Founders more than 200 years ago is no longer working as I think it was intended. Oh, we had a definitive winner at the end of last night, with Obama collecting 303 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 206. And in that sense, the system worked perfectly. But if you looked at the map and saw how many states went to Republicans and how many went to Democrats, something is very wrong.
Specifically, Romney carried the South and large parts of the middle of the country. Obama, as expected carried the coasts and the Industrial Northeast, with a few isolated blue specks in the middle. To look at the Electoral map, one would almost certainly conclude that our country was a strongly Republican nation. Yet, that's not what happened.
Because a good portion of our population lives along the coasts -- in states like California, Washington, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania and in the Northeast, Obama was able to collect the Electoral votes he needed while leaving the middle of the country largely to Romney, with the exception of a few battleground states such as Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. While that strategy was good enough to win, is it really fair that the middle part of the country and the South went largely unrepresented last night? I don't think so.
The Electoral College is an example of the many brilliant compromises our founding fathers made in creating our Constitution. Although many of the convention delegates originally favored the Virginia Plan, which would have weighted representation in Congress based on a state's population and had the president and vice president selected by Congress, many delegates from smaller states feared intrigue created by a small group of men gathering to select the nation's leaders. They also feared that the president's and vice president's independence would be compromised if they were selected by Congress. And they feared that larger, more populous states would carry disproportianate weight in selecting the president and vice president. And so, the Electoral College was born.
Today, Americans elect the president and his vice president indirectly. When we cast our ballots for president, we are actually selecting a slate of Electors who are charged with voting for that candidate, though they are under no legal obligation to do so. The number of Electoral votes assigned to each state is identical to that state's representation in Congress.
The flaw in this system is obvious and fatal. Although the Electoral College was intended to even the playing field, to make sure that smaller states weren't dominated by larger states, we still have a system where the most populous states can determine an election's outcome. Worse yet, under the current system, a state's most populous cities -- such as Los Angeles and San Francisco in California -- can actually swing a state in a candidate's favor. We saw this last night when California was given to Obama, even before all the votes were counted.
At the end of last night, both Obama and Romney had collected 49 percent of the popular vote, with only a few thousand actual votes separating them. Yet, Obama was clearly ahead in the Electoral College. How is this fair, that the will of so many people was thwarted? And what can we do about it?
One of the advantages of the current system is that it usually provides us with a definitive winner. Whichever candidate collects the most Electoral votes wins, no matter the popular tally. If we wanted to place more emphasis on the popular vote, one way would be to let popular vote determine the outcome. Keep the Electoral College, but only go to the Electoral votes in the case of a tie in the popular tally. In that case, whoever had the most Electoral votes would be declared the winner.
Another idea is to divide each state into districts based on the number of that state's Electoral votes. Each district would get one Electoral vote, and they would be assigned according to how each district voted. The winner in each district would get that district's vote instead of the "winner take all" approach we currently have. This would likely increase the time it takes to declare a winner, but it would have the effect of making each vote mean something. And it would prevent a few population centers in each state from determining who won the state.
Election 2012 is in the books, and while not everyone will be happy with the outcome, we should be thankful that we live in a country where we are free to elect our own leaders and where we continue to have peaceful elections. Our system has worked well, with only a few hiccups over the past 200+ years. That's remarkable, and it's something to be proud of. But that doesn't mean it can't be tweaked.
My hope is that between now and the next election in 2016, we will seek to improve our system so that everyone's voice, not just a few, can be clearly heard and can help determine our nation's future.
If one thing became apparent last night, it's that the system that was brilliantly conceived by our Founders more than 200 years ago is no longer working as I think it was intended. Oh, we had a definitive winner at the end of last night, with Obama collecting 303 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 206. And in that sense, the system worked perfectly. But if you looked at the map and saw how many states went to Republicans and how many went to Democrats, something is very wrong.
Specifically, Romney carried the South and large parts of the middle of the country. Obama, as expected carried the coasts and the Industrial Northeast, with a few isolated blue specks in the middle. To look at the Electoral map, one would almost certainly conclude that our country was a strongly Republican nation. Yet, that's not what happened.
Because a good portion of our population lives along the coasts -- in states like California, Washington, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania and in the Northeast, Obama was able to collect the Electoral votes he needed while leaving the middle of the country largely to Romney, with the exception of a few battleground states such as Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. While that strategy was good enough to win, is it really fair that the middle part of the country and the South went largely unrepresented last night? I don't think so.
The Electoral College is an example of the many brilliant compromises our founding fathers made in creating our Constitution. Although many of the convention delegates originally favored the Virginia Plan, which would have weighted representation in Congress based on a state's population and had the president and vice president selected by Congress, many delegates from smaller states feared intrigue created by a small group of men gathering to select the nation's leaders. They also feared that the president's and vice president's independence would be compromised if they were selected by Congress. And they feared that larger, more populous states would carry disproportianate weight in selecting the president and vice president. And so, the Electoral College was born.
Today, Americans elect the president and his vice president indirectly. When we cast our ballots for president, we are actually selecting a slate of Electors who are charged with voting for that candidate, though they are under no legal obligation to do so. The number of Electoral votes assigned to each state is identical to that state's representation in Congress.
The flaw in this system is obvious and fatal. Although the Electoral College was intended to even the playing field, to make sure that smaller states weren't dominated by larger states, we still have a system where the most populous states can determine an election's outcome. Worse yet, under the current system, a state's most populous cities -- such as Los Angeles and San Francisco in California -- can actually swing a state in a candidate's favor. We saw this last night when California was given to Obama, even before all the votes were counted.
At the end of last night, both Obama and Romney had collected 49 percent of the popular vote, with only a few thousand actual votes separating them. Yet, Obama was clearly ahead in the Electoral College. How is this fair, that the will of so many people was thwarted? And what can we do about it?
One of the advantages of the current system is that it usually provides us with a definitive winner. Whichever candidate collects the most Electoral votes wins, no matter the popular tally. If we wanted to place more emphasis on the popular vote, one way would be to let popular vote determine the outcome. Keep the Electoral College, but only go to the Electoral votes in the case of a tie in the popular tally. In that case, whoever had the most Electoral votes would be declared the winner.
Another idea is to divide each state into districts based on the number of that state's Electoral votes. Each district would get one Electoral vote, and they would be assigned according to how each district voted. The winner in each district would get that district's vote instead of the "winner take all" approach we currently have. This would likely increase the time it takes to declare a winner, but it would have the effect of making each vote mean something. And it would prevent a few population centers in each state from determining who won the state.
Election 2012 is in the books, and while not everyone will be happy with the outcome, we should be thankful that we live in a country where we are free to elect our own leaders and where we continue to have peaceful elections. Our system has worked well, with only a few hiccups over the past 200+ years. That's remarkable, and it's something to be proud of. But that doesn't mean it can't be tweaked.
My hope is that between now and the next election in 2016, we will seek to improve our system so that everyone's voice, not just a few, can be clearly heard and can help determine our nation's future.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
What does the Second Amendment really mean?
The other night, a close friend and I got into a discussion about gun ownership in America. This friend has long been a staunch advocate of guns and gun ownership, while I have slowly come around to the acceptance of people's right to bear arms, though I'm still in favor of common-sense gun control. This particular night, we were discussing the United Nations' stance on gun control, and their latest efforts, at least according to my friend, to take guns away from law-abiding Americans through the Arms Trade Treaty, which is currently in the discussion stages. According to my friend, if this treaty is ratified, it won't be long before we see government agents coming to your door to get your guns.
Intrigued, I decided to do some research. What I found is that the truth had been twisted almost beyond recognition. The ATT says nothing about confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens. Nor does it say a word about national gun registration, as the Gunowners of America lobbying group claims. The ATT is simply designed to give some uniformity to the international laws governing the illegal trade and transport of weapons. It is designed to keep the guns out of the hands of terrorists and drug dealers, not to disarm Americans. In fact, even supporters of the treaty affirm that each country has the right to regulate guns as it sees fit. In other words, we have nothing to fear.
The controversy over the ATT does raise an interesting question for those who care to ask: What exactly does the Second Amendment guarantee Americans? To paraphrase, the Second Amendment says that a well-regulated militia being necessary for the national defense, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But what exactly does that mean?
Well, if you put it in the correct historical context, a militia at the time the Second Amendment was written was made up of every farmer with a pitchfork or a musket. In other words, the militia was the people, the regular citizens. And this is how gun advocates interpret it: That everyone who wants one should have the right to a weapon.
An equally strong argument could be made that the Second Amendment should be interpreted using today's definition of militia. Under that definition, only trained police officers and members of the military would be allowed to be armed. While that argument makes sense on the surface, I see at least a couple of problems with it.
First, as much as I hate to admit it, the gun advocates are right. If we take the guns out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding Americans, soon only the criminals will have guns.
Second, if we take guns away from the people, it will, within a generation or two, create a citizenry that is terrified of firearms. If that happens, who, then, will serve in our military?
I have come a long way since my early 20s, when I advocated confiscating guns and "making something useful out of them." Today, I would identify myself as an advocate for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
What that means is that while I acknowledge every American's right to own a firearm, I'm in favor of three-day waiting periods, background checks for prospective purchasers and closing the "gun show loophole." I believe that gun owners should be held responsible for the proper storage and maintaining of their guns. Whether that means a gun safe or a secure lock and key, if there are children in the house, guns should be securely stored out of sight, with the bullets stored separately. Period.
I don't believe that gun manufacturers should be held liable for what irresponsible people do with their products.That would be like holding auto manufacturers responsible when drivers have accidents. But if a child steals his parent's gun, takes it to school and opens fire, that parent should be held liable for that child's actions, since the gun was obviously not secured.
Gun ownership is one of those rights that makes us uniquely American, just as our rights to free speech and freedom of religion do. But the freedom to own a firearm doesn't mean we're free of responsibility. If we're going to allow an armed populace, then it's up to us to make sure that we're thoroughly educated in the proper and safe use of those weapons. It's up to us to make sure that weapons don't fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable. And far from passing new gun control laws, it's up to us to make sure the existing laws are properly enforced. If we can do those things, there should be no need to worry about losing our right to gun ownership in America.
Intrigued, I decided to do some research. What I found is that the truth had been twisted almost beyond recognition. The ATT says nothing about confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens. Nor does it say a word about national gun registration, as the Gunowners of America lobbying group claims. The ATT is simply designed to give some uniformity to the international laws governing the illegal trade and transport of weapons. It is designed to keep the guns out of the hands of terrorists and drug dealers, not to disarm Americans. In fact, even supporters of the treaty affirm that each country has the right to regulate guns as it sees fit. In other words, we have nothing to fear.
The controversy over the ATT does raise an interesting question for those who care to ask: What exactly does the Second Amendment guarantee Americans? To paraphrase, the Second Amendment says that a well-regulated militia being necessary for the national defense, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But what exactly does that mean?
Well, if you put it in the correct historical context, a militia at the time the Second Amendment was written was made up of every farmer with a pitchfork or a musket. In other words, the militia was the people, the regular citizens. And this is how gun advocates interpret it: That everyone who wants one should have the right to a weapon.
An equally strong argument could be made that the Second Amendment should be interpreted using today's definition of militia. Under that definition, only trained police officers and members of the military would be allowed to be armed. While that argument makes sense on the surface, I see at least a couple of problems with it.
First, as much as I hate to admit it, the gun advocates are right. If we take the guns out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding Americans, soon only the criminals will have guns.
Second, if we take guns away from the people, it will, within a generation or two, create a citizenry that is terrified of firearms. If that happens, who, then, will serve in our military?
I have come a long way since my early 20s, when I advocated confiscating guns and "making something useful out of them." Today, I would identify myself as an advocate for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
What that means is that while I acknowledge every American's right to own a firearm, I'm in favor of three-day waiting periods, background checks for prospective purchasers and closing the "gun show loophole." I believe that gun owners should be held responsible for the proper storage and maintaining of their guns. Whether that means a gun safe or a secure lock and key, if there are children in the house, guns should be securely stored out of sight, with the bullets stored separately. Period.
I don't believe that gun manufacturers should be held liable for what irresponsible people do with their products.That would be like holding auto manufacturers responsible when drivers have accidents. But if a child steals his parent's gun, takes it to school and opens fire, that parent should be held liable for that child's actions, since the gun was obviously not secured.
Gun ownership is one of those rights that makes us uniquely American, just as our rights to free speech and freedom of religion do. But the freedom to own a firearm doesn't mean we're free of responsibility. If we're going to allow an armed populace, then it's up to us to make sure that we're thoroughly educated in the proper and safe use of those weapons. It's up to us to make sure that weapons don't fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable. And far from passing new gun control laws, it's up to us to make sure the existing laws are properly enforced. If we can do those things, there should be no need to worry about losing our right to gun ownership in America.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Have we forgotten Sept. 11?
Today marks the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the crash of United Flight 93. Last year, during the landmark 10th anniversary, the event was widely covered, and there was talk for days, weeks, about "never forgetting the tragedy of Sept. 11." This year, the observance has been much more muted. Attendance at memorial events is down noticeably from last year, and there is talk that we have begun to forget the painful lessons learned that fateful Tuesday morning. Worse, there is talk that we have begun to forget those who died, and those heroes who fought to save others. So have we REALLY begun to forget 9/11? I don't think so.
I agree with my friend, Jason Tippitt's theory. He believes that less mention of 9/11 this year isn't a sign of disrespect, but a sign of healing. According to his theory, we haven't forgotten those who died that day. Instead, we have simply begun to move on with our lives, something the heroes of 9/11 would have wanted. To remain in a perpetual state of grief and anger only keeps us stuck in that horrific moment and paralyzes us as a people. This, Tippitt says, would represent the ultimate victory for the hijackers. He's right.
I don't think anyone who was alive and fully conscious on Sept. 11, 2001, could ever forget where they were or what they were doing when the first plane hit. As for me, I was walking to work after having breakfast with my best friend. Suddenly, I saw a co-worker come tearing around the corner. He told me what had happened, and I hurried on to work in stunned disbelief, arriving just after the second plane had hit. That's all I really remember until that evening. My boss was on vacation for two weeks, having signed up to do a "civilian ride along" with his son, who is in the Navy. Once I got there, I was thrown into a whirlwind of activity that didn't stop until I got home a little over 12 hours later. It was then, when I turned on the TV and started watching coverage, that I fully realized the horror of what had happened that day
I believe anyone old enough to really remember 9/11 has a story similar to mine. We remember where we were and what we were doing when the attacks happened, just like our parents remember where they were when President Kennedy was assassinated, or where they were during the moon landing. Just like our grandparents remember where they were and what they were doing when World War II finally came to an end. Events like these leave an indelible impression on our national and our individual consciousness. They are not events that are easily, if ever forgotten.
The question I think we should be asking ourselves today is whether we have forgotten the hard lessons learned as a result of the terrorist attacks. What are those lessons?
1. We are not immune to terrorism: Growing up, and even into my early adulthood, I shared in the national delusion that America was somehow protected from terrorist attacks. Even in light of the first attempt to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, I still thought of terrorism as something that happened in other parts of the world, to other people. "Surely no one would be dumb enough to attack us on our own soil," I thought. "It will never happen here. Not in my lifetime."
With one, well-coordinated attack on Sept. 11, 2001, that illusion of safety was shattered forever. The truth is, no amount of distance or ocean can protect us from fanatics who are determined to get us. The truth is, it's not a matter of IF we'll be attacked again, but WHEN.
2. We are not as beloved in the world as we like to think we are, and our actions have consequences: America's hubris is perhaps its greatest weakness. As Americans, we are raised to believe that we live in the greatest country in the world. We like to cast ourselves as the "white knight" on the world stage, always riding to the rescue of some poor, downtrodden nation. We like to think that we will be greeted as heroes wherever we go, that we are universally beloved. Unfortunately, that's not even close to true. The truth is, our unabashed, unrelenting support of Israel has made us plenty of enemies in the Middle East. There, we're derided as "The Great Satan." And not every country we try to help is appreciative of that aid. Some look at it as interference. Some just want to be left alone to handle their own affairs.
For our own safety, we need to learn that our foreign policy doesn't take place in a vacuum. Our actions will generate consequences. We need to learn that although it is OK to offer our help to another country, not everyone wants it. If that's the case, we should bow out quietly. We should, in short, learn to show other countries the very same respect that we demand.
3. The "War on Terror" is an endless war that can never be won: Remember in the days following 9/11, when President George W. Bush spoke glowingly about waging "war on terror," and about making the world safe for democracy? It's a beautiful dream, but it's a goal that can never, ever be reached. That's because what Bush was talking about wasn't waging war against a country -- say Afghanistan or Iraq. This isn't a matter of flexing our military muscle and beating another country into submission. What Bush proposed was a war against a PHILOSOPHY, terrorism. He talked about defeating terrorism and making the world safe for freedom. Again, beautiful dream, but impossible to achieve.
The reality is, no matter how many men we send to fight, no matter how much money we spend, we have no hope of winning against such a vague and shadowy enemy. We could kill terrorist leaders every day for the next 100 years, and there will always be someone waiting in the wings to replace them. We can torture suspected terrorists as much as we want for information, and all we'll accomplish is to create the next generation of terrorists who are willing to die to hurt us.
Terrorism has been used as a political tool since long before the United States was even though of, and it will continue to be around long after we're gone. If we are to have any hope of changing this, we need to look at ourselves first. We need to realize that we are at least partly responsible for the hatred other nations feel toward us. Our actions DO have consequences, and failure to change our thinking and our actions will only guarantee that we keep getting the same results.
If we want to defeat terrorism, we need to start showing other countries the same respect we demand. We need to realize that the American style of democracy is unique to us. It can't be duplicated anywhere else with any success, so we should stop trying to force it on others. Not every democracy in the world is going to look like ours. Some countries are going to choose leaders we don't like, and who don't like us. Some countries are going to choose alternate forms of government we don't like (i.e., socialism).
If we truly believe in freedom for the world, doesn't that mean people should be free to choose their own form of government and their own leaders, even if we don't like them? Doesn't it mean they should be free to worship as they choose, even if we don't agree with their chosen religion? Doesn't it mean that they are due our respect?
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were a national tragedy, no doubt. And it is right that we should pause each year to remember both the heroes and the victims of that day. But if we end our reflection just remembering the tragedy, it's victims and heroes; if we fail to remember the lessons their sacrifices should have taught us, then they will have died in vain.
I agree with my friend, Jason Tippitt's theory. He believes that less mention of 9/11 this year isn't a sign of disrespect, but a sign of healing. According to his theory, we haven't forgotten those who died that day. Instead, we have simply begun to move on with our lives, something the heroes of 9/11 would have wanted. To remain in a perpetual state of grief and anger only keeps us stuck in that horrific moment and paralyzes us as a people. This, Tippitt says, would represent the ultimate victory for the hijackers. He's right.
I don't think anyone who was alive and fully conscious on Sept. 11, 2001, could ever forget where they were or what they were doing when the first plane hit. As for me, I was walking to work after having breakfast with my best friend. Suddenly, I saw a co-worker come tearing around the corner. He told me what had happened, and I hurried on to work in stunned disbelief, arriving just after the second plane had hit. That's all I really remember until that evening. My boss was on vacation for two weeks, having signed up to do a "civilian ride along" with his son, who is in the Navy. Once I got there, I was thrown into a whirlwind of activity that didn't stop until I got home a little over 12 hours later. It was then, when I turned on the TV and started watching coverage, that I fully realized the horror of what had happened that day
I believe anyone old enough to really remember 9/11 has a story similar to mine. We remember where we were and what we were doing when the attacks happened, just like our parents remember where they were when President Kennedy was assassinated, or where they were during the moon landing. Just like our grandparents remember where they were and what they were doing when World War II finally came to an end. Events like these leave an indelible impression on our national and our individual consciousness. They are not events that are easily, if ever forgotten.
The question I think we should be asking ourselves today is whether we have forgotten the hard lessons learned as a result of the terrorist attacks. What are those lessons?
1. We are not immune to terrorism: Growing up, and even into my early adulthood, I shared in the national delusion that America was somehow protected from terrorist attacks. Even in light of the first attempt to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, I still thought of terrorism as something that happened in other parts of the world, to other people. "Surely no one would be dumb enough to attack us on our own soil," I thought. "It will never happen here. Not in my lifetime."
With one, well-coordinated attack on Sept. 11, 2001, that illusion of safety was shattered forever. The truth is, no amount of distance or ocean can protect us from fanatics who are determined to get us. The truth is, it's not a matter of IF we'll be attacked again, but WHEN.
2. We are not as beloved in the world as we like to think we are, and our actions have consequences: America's hubris is perhaps its greatest weakness. As Americans, we are raised to believe that we live in the greatest country in the world. We like to cast ourselves as the "white knight" on the world stage, always riding to the rescue of some poor, downtrodden nation. We like to think that we will be greeted as heroes wherever we go, that we are universally beloved. Unfortunately, that's not even close to true. The truth is, our unabashed, unrelenting support of Israel has made us plenty of enemies in the Middle East. There, we're derided as "The Great Satan." And not every country we try to help is appreciative of that aid. Some look at it as interference. Some just want to be left alone to handle their own affairs.
For our own safety, we need to learn that our foreign policy doesn't take place in a vacuum. Our actions will generate consequences. We need to learn that although it is OK to offer our help to another country, not everyone wants it. If that's the case, we should bow out quietly. We should, in short, learn to show other countries the very same respect that we demand.
3. The "War on Terror" is an endless war that can never be won: Remember in the days following 9/11, when President George W. Bush spoke glowingly about waging "war on terror," and about making the world safe for democracy? It's a beautiful dream, but it's a goal that can never, ever be reached. That's because what Bush was talking about wasn't waging war against a country -- say Afghanistan or Iraq. This isn't a matter of flexing our military muscle and beating another country into submission. What Bush proposed was a war against a PHILOSOPHY, terrorism. He talked about defeating terrorism and making the world safe for freedom. Again, beautiful dream, but impossible to achieve.
The reality is, no matter how many men we send to fight, no matter how much money we spend, we have no hope of winning against such a vague and shadowy enemy. We could kill terrorist leaders every day for the next 100 years, and there will always be someone waiting in the wings to replace them. We can torture suspected terrorists as much as we want for information, and all we'll accomplish is to create the next generation of terrorists who are willing to die to hurt us.
Terrorism has been used as a political tool since long before the United States was even though of, and it will continue to be around long after we're gone. If we are to have any hope of changing this, we need to look at ourselves first. We need to realize that we are at least partly responsible for the hatred other nations feel toward us. Our actions DO have consequences, and failure to change our thinking and our actions will only guarantee that we keep getting the same results.
If we want to defeat terrorism, we need to start showing other countries the same respect we demand. We need to realize that the American style of democracy is unique to us. It can't be duplicated anywhere else with any success, so we should stop trying to force it on others. Not every democracy in the world is going to look like ours. Some countries are going to choose leaders we don't like, and who don't like us. Some countries are going to choose alternate forms of government we don't like (i.e., socialism).
If we truly believe in freedom for the world, doesn't that mean people should be free to choose their own form of government and their own leaders, even if we don't like them? Doesn't it mean they should be free to worship as they choose, even if we don't agree with their chosen religion? Doesn't it mean that they are due our respect?
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were a national tragedy, no doubt. And it is right that we should pause each year to remember both the heroes and the victims of that day. But if we end our reflection just remembering the tragedy, it's victims and heroes; if we fail to remember the lessons their sacrifices should have taught us, then they will have died in vain.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Handicapping Election 2012
It's hard to believe, but in a little less than two months, we'll know the answer to the question of who will be president for the next four years. Will it be "golden boy" Mitt Romney, whose life has been a chain of largely uninterrupted successes? Or will Barack Obama, who shocked the world in 2008 by completing his meteoric rise from state senator from Illinois to the White House, be able to hold on to his job?
Looking at this objectively, I'd say we have a fairly even race between two appealing, well-financed candidates. So who wins in November? That's the question I'm going to attempt to answer. Let's get started with the challenger.
Mitt Romney: Romney would appear to have it all. He has the pedigree. His father, George, was the governor of Michigan in the 1960s, as well as a former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He's been a successful businessman, with a current personal worth of almost $200 million. He helped turn around the ailing Salt Lake Winter Olympics in the 1990s (though some say the games weren't in as much trouble as he claimed.) And he managed the near impossible feat of being elected governor of Massachusetts as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. From that position, he showed an ability to govern from the political middle. He even managed to pass health care reform similar to "Obamacare," which he now says he wants to repeal. In fact, the only glitches on his otherwise sterling resume are a failed U.S. Senate run against Ted Kennedy and a failed presidential bid four years ago.
This year was ripe for a Romney run. In the early going, he stood out, head and shoulders above a field of glaringly weak candidates composed of no-names (Herman Cain, John Huntsman) and has-beens (Newt Gingrich). In the Republican debates earlier this year, Romney appeared the most presidential and the most prepared. He even managed to cast himself as the most moderate of the candidates.
So could he beat Obama? Most definitely. Romney's biggest strengths are his business acumen, his ability to raise funds (he has often ranked among the leaders in fund-raising in other races) and his ability to appear moderate. In fact, he has shown he has the ability to govern as a moderate when called upon (or when he's forced to -- see Massachusetts). That ability to govern from the middle may represent the biggest threat to Obama, since it will certainly appeal to undecided and "swing" voters.
But as much as Romney brings to this race, his weaknesses are just as glaring. Chief among these is his tendency to change his mind on positions important to the GOP. Romney was a pro-choice Republican until 2005, when he had a change of heart and became pro-life. While governor of Massachusetts, he declared that he was against gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions. In fact, he even ordered the county clerks of his state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Now, he has cast himself as being against both gay marriage and civil unions. While I understand that people sometimes have changes of heart (it happens to us all), these "flip-flops" on important positions strike me as disingenuous at best, blatantly opportunistic at worst. Whether he intended it or not, Romney has made it appear as if he has no core convictions of his own, that he simply adopts the position that is most popular at the moment, and that will help him get ahead. That's slimy. And it makes it hard for voters to know what Romney will do if elected.
Romney's other glaring weakness is his pick for vice president, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. As I've noted before, Ryan is an extremist of the worst kind. He has shown that he doesn't like women, having voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, declaring that he is against all abortions, even those that result from rape or incest, and wanting to deny over-the-counter status to emergency contraception. His forte is supposedly the budget, but his proposals would damage both Social Security and Medicare. Ryan's nomination will likely appeal to the most hardcore, radical parts of the Republican Party, but it will do nothing to burnish Romney's reputation as a moderate who can govern from the middle. When it comes to making that case, Ryan is a definite liability.
Barack Obama: Obama's biggest strength is, ironically, also his biggest weakness. Obama is the incumbent, and historically, incumbents are extremely difficult to beat. Being the incumbent means that Obama has a built-in bully pulpit to get his message out to voters that Romney doesn't have. When Obama speaks, everyone stops and listens. But that is also his biggest weakness, since Obama now has a record he has to defend to voters.
In grading Obama's first term, I think he deserves credit on two fronts. First, Obama has largely lived up to the promises he made to voters four years ago. Obama promised to put an end to the unpopular Iraq war, and he has done so. Although we still have troops in Afghanistan, we now have a timetable in place for bringing them home.
Obama promised to put an end to the misguided "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military, and he did so.
Obama promised to pass health care reform, and he did so, even though "Obamacare," as it is derisively called by Republicans, has now become a rallying point for the GOP in this election.
Obama deserves credit for thinking outside the box. Whether you agree with his health care plan or not, and it is by no means perfect, it is at least something markedly different from the status quo, which has been proven not to work. And if the Republicans don't like it, where's their plan? It's not enough to just criticize Obama's plan to fix health care. If the GOP succeeds in repealing the Affordable Care Act, then what's their plan? To go back to the status quo? That's hardly progress, and it would be unacceptable.
Obama's weakness, of course, is the economy. While the stock market has recovered nicely in the past four years (remember it was down below 10,000 when he took office), and while certain key indicators have bounced back, the truth is, unemployment has remained largely unchanged. There are still millions of people out of work, or who have just given up on even trying to gain employment. Voters tend to "vote their wallets," so if job growth remains stagnant, Obama could be in serious trouble. If, however, voters perceive that, though the economy isn't full recovered, it is headed in the right direction, they might be willing to give Obama four more years to see what happens.
So to the big question: Who wins in November? For myself, I hope Obama gets another term. Sure, he hasn't done everything he promised. In some ways, he's been a disappointment to those of us who bought into "Hope and Change" and "Yes, we Can!" But I don't think he's done enough wrong to justify a change, even though he hasn't accomplished everything yet.
Who do I think will actually win? At this point, I would give the slightest edge to Romney. I think people are angry. They're tired of government spending and deficits and debts. And they're worried about employment and the continuing lack of jobs. I think Romney will take advantage of that, just as Bill Clinton did in 1992, when "it's the economy, stupid" became his rally cry.
If Romney manages to unseat Obama, he will face a stiff challenge that will require every bit of his business acumen and diplomacy. He has shown he has the ability to govern from the middle when he needs to. The question is, will he? Or will he kowtow to the most extreme elements of his party? I remain hopeful, but only time will tell.
Looking at this objectively, I'd say we have a fairly even race between two appealing, well-financed candidates. So who wins in November? That's the question I'm going to attempt to answer. Let's get started with the challenger.
Mitt Romney: Romney would appear to have it all. He has the pedigree. His father, George, was the governor of Michigan in the 1960s, as well as a former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He's been a successful businessman, with a current personal worth of almost $200 million. He helped turn around the ailing Salt Lake Winter Olympics in the 1990s (though some say the games weren't in as much trouble as he claimed.) And he managed the near impossible feat of being elected governor of Massachusetts as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. From that position, he showed an ability to govern from the political middle. He even managed to pass health care reform similar to "Obamacare," which he now says he wants to repeal. In fact, the only glitches on his otherwise sterling resume are a failed U.S. Senate run against Ted Kennedy and a failed presidential bid four years ago.
This year was ripe for a Romney run. In the early going, he stood out, head and shoulders above a field of glaringly weak candidates composed of no-names (Herman Cain, John Huntsman) and has-beens (Newt Gingrich). In the Republican debates earlier this year, Romney appeared the most presidential and the most prepared. He even managed to cast himself as the most moderate of the candidates.
So could he beat Obama? Most definitely. Romney's biggest strengths are his business acumen, his ability to raise funds (he has often ranked among the leaders in fund-raising in other races) and his ability to appear moderate. In fact, he has shown he has the ability to govern as a moderate when called upon (or when he's forced to -- see Massachusetts). That ability to govern from the middle may represent the biggest threat to Obama, since it will certainly appeal to undecided and "swing" voters.
But as much as Romney brings to this race, his weaknesses are just as glaring. Chief among these is his tendency to change his mind on positions important to the GOP. Romney was a pro-choice Republican until 2005, when he had a change of heart and became pro-life. While governor of Massachusetts, he declared that he was against gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions. In fact, he even ordered the county clerks of his state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Now, he has cast himself as being against both gay marriage and civil unions. While I understand that people sometimes have changes of heart (it happens to us all), these "flip-flops" on important positions strike me as disingenuous at best, blatantly opportunistic at worst. Whether he intended it or not, Romney has made it appear as if he has no core convictions of his own, that he simply adopts the position that is most popular at the moment, and that will help him get ahead. That's slimy. And it makes it hard for voters to know what Romney will do if elected.
Romney's other glaring weakness is his pick for vice president, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. As I've noted before, Ryan is an extremist of the worst kind. He has shown that he doesn't like women, having voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, declaring that he is against all abortions, even those that result from rape or incest, and wanting to deny over-the-counter status to emergency contraception. His forte is supposedly the budget, but his proposals would damage both Social Security and Medicare. Ryan's nomination will likely appeal to the most hardcore, radical parts of the Republican Party, but it will do nothing to burnish Romney's reputation as a moderate who can govern from the middle. When it comes to making that case, Ryan is a definite liability.
Barack Obama: Obama's biggest strength is, ironically, also his biggest weakness. Obama is the incumbent, and historically, incumbents are extremely difficult to beat. Being the incumbent means that Obama has a built-in bully pulpit to get his message out to voters that Romney doesn't have. When Obama speaks, everyone stops and listens. But that is also his biggest weakness, since Obama now has a record he has to defend to voters.
In grading Obama's first term, I think he deserves credit on two fronts. First, Obama has largely lived up to the promises he made to voters four years ago. Obama promised to put an end to the unpopular Iraq war, and he has done so. Although we still have troops in Afghanistan, we now have a timetable in place for bringing them home.
Obama promised to put an end to the misguided "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military, and he did so.
Obama promised to pass health care reform, and he did so, even though "Obamacare," as it is derisively called by Republicans, has now become a rallying point for the GOP in this election.
Obama deserves credit for thinking outside the box. Whether you agree with his health care plan or not, and it is by no means perfect, it is at least something markedly different from the status quo, which has been proven not to work. And if the Republicans don't like it, where's their plan? It's not enough to just criticize Obama's plan to fix health care. If the GOP succeeds in repealing the Affordable Care Act, then what's their plan? To go back to the status quo? That's hardly progress, and it would be unacceptable.
Obama's weakness, of course, is the economy. While the stock market has recovered nicely in the past four years (remember it was down below 10,000 when he took office), and while certain key indicators have bounced back, the truth is, unemployment has remained largely unchanged. There are still millions of people out of work, or who have just given up on even trying to gain employment. Voters tend to "vote their wallets," so if job growth remains stagnant, Obama could be in serious trouble. If, however, voters perceive that, though the economy isn't full recovered, it is headed in the right direction, they might be willing to give Obama four more years to see what happens.
So to the big question: Who wins in November? For myself, I hope Obama gets another term. Sure, he hasn't done everything he promised. In some ways, he's been a disappointment to those of us who bought into "Hope and Change" and "Yes, we Can!" But I don't think he's done enough wrong to justify a change, even though he hasn't accomplished everything yet.
Who do I think will actually win? At this point, I would give the slightest edge to Romney. I think people are angry. They're tired of government spending and deficits and debts. And they're worried about employment and the continuing lack of jobs. I think Romney will take advantage of that, just as Bill Clinton did in 1992, when "it's the economy, stupid" became his rally cry.
If Romney manages to unseat Obama, he will face a stiff challenge that will require every bit of his business acumen and diplomacy. He has shown he has the ability to govern from the middle when he needs to. The question is, will he? Or will he kowtow to the most extreme elements of his party? I remain hopeful, but only time will tell.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Ryan pick could sink Romney's campaign
On Aug. 11, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney unveiled Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his pick for vice presidential running mate. While some have hailed the pick as "excellent," including the predictably conservative Wall Street Journal, the truth is, Ryan's positions make him wholly unsuitable for the job. In fact, I predict what seemed a safe pick at the time may ultimately sink Romney in the general election.
Who is Paul Ryan? He's a seven-term Congressman from Wisconsin, first elected in 1998. At one time, he was a follower of the writings of Ayn Rand, even going so far as to give her books as Christmas presents, though he has since disavowed her influence. He has risen quickly through the Republican heirarchy, and currently serves as the chairman of the House Budget Committee. From that position, he has proposed several controversial budgets, which among other things, would partially privatize Social Security and would turn Medicaid into a block grant for the states. Ryan also wants to replace Medicare with a voucher program for seniors to allow them to purchase private insurance. The problem? The amount of the vouchers would be fixed, and would not increase as medical costs increased (as people age). That means eventually, seniors would end up at least partially uninsured.
Ryan has made his name as the ultimate fiscal conservative. But look at his ideas, and you'll see that he's hardly in favor of helping the middle class or the poor. At the beginning of his tenure in Congress, he voted to extend unemployment benefits. He has not done so since 2009 (read, since Obama has been in the White House). Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for Women. He also voted against the Credit Card Consumer Bill of Rights and against the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As far as tax policy, he, among other things, favors the creation of an 8.5 percent "consumption tax." Often billed as the fairest form of taxation, since you essentially "pay as you go," this is, in reality, a regressive tax that hits the middle class and the poor the hardest, since it would take a bigger portion of these people's income to pay it.
Ryan's fiscal ideas are scary. What's even scarier are his ideas on social policy.
As a Republican, Ryan is virulently pro-life. That's no surprise. What's scary is the degree to which he takes this stance. Ryan opposes all abortions, even those being performed as a result of rape or incest. But he wants to give states the right to prosecute women who have abortions. He voted for the "Sanctity of Life" Act, which would have given personhood, as well as Constitutional rights and privileges, to fertilized eggs. He has consistently voted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood and Title X family planning programs. And he has resisted efforts to give over-the-counter status to emergency contraception. In short, in his pro-life stance alone, Paul Ryan seeks to set women back 100 years. He wants to bring women back to a time of being "barefoot and pregnant." He wants to deny them vital information which could help them make an informed choice about when or if to start a family. And he wants to deny them easy access to reliable contraception. That's scary.
And then there's Ryan's apparent dislike of gays and transgender people. He voted against the Matthew Shepard Act, which extends the definition of "hate crime" to include crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation or sexual identity. He is opposed to same-sex marriage (he favors a constitutional ban), opposed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and he is opposed to allowing gay couples to adopt.
Finally, there's Ryan's questionable stance on free-speech issues. He favors cutting funding for National Public Radio and passing a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning. That issue was settled in 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared it an act of free speech. So, the question is, does Ryan oppose free speech? Or does he only oppose speech that conflicts with his own, narrow view of the world?
In some ways, Romney's choice of Ryan is smart, just like everything else he's done during this campaign. Ryan is young (he's 42). He's photogenic. He's certainly got the conservative "bonafides" to please just about everyone in his party. And his home state doesn't hurt matters, either. Wisconsin is a largely Democratic state. By picking Ryan, I'm sure Romney is hoping to make inroads there for the GOP.
So why will Romney ultimately regret choosing Ryan? Because Ryan's views are far outside the mainstream of the vast majority of Americans, who tend to gravitate toward the political middle. Ryan's views appeal to the most hardcore segments of his party, the "Tea Party Republicans," is you will. But I don't think they represent the views of the vast majority of the electorate. I don't think they appeal even to the majority of his own party. And being such an extremist on so many issues will only serve to alienate the all-important "swing voter."
Romney has spent a large portion of this election trying to paint himself as a more moderate Republican, someone who can govern successfully across party lines. Romney's record as governor of Massachussetts would seem to indicate that he's capable of governing from the middle.
That's why the choice of Ryan is such a mystery. Paul Ryan is an extremist. No doubt about it. I would hesitate to put him one step away from the presidency. and I think (at least I hope) the majority of voters would feel the same way. I believe, in the end, that this might be a case of Mitt Romney, "the smart candidate," finally outsmarting himself.
Who is Paul Ryan? He's a seven-term Congressman from Wisconsin, first elected in 1998. At one time, he was a follower of the writings of Ayn Rand, even going so far as to give her books as Christmas presents, though he has since disavowed her influence. He has risen quickly through the Republican heirarchy, and currently serves as the chairman of the House Budget Committee. From that position, he has proposed several controversial budgets, which among other things, would partially privatize Social Security and would turn Medicaid into a block grant for the states. Ryan also wants to replace Medicare with a voucher program for seniors to allow them to purchase private insurance. The problem? The amount of the vouchers would be fixed, and would not increase as medical costs increased (as people age). That means eventually, seniors would end up at least partially uninsured.
Ryan has made his name as the ultimate fiscal conservative. But look at his ideas, and you'll see that he's hardly in favor of helping the middle class or the poor. At the beginning of his tenure in Congress, he voted to extend unemployment benefits. He has not done so since 2009 (read, since Obama has been in the White House). Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for Women. He also voted against the Credit Card Consumer Bill of Rights and against the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As far as tax policy, he, among other things, favors the creation of an 8.5 percent "consumption tax." Often billed as the fairest form of taxation, since you essentially "pay as you go," this is, in reality, a regressive tax that hits the middle class and the poor the hardest, since it would take a bigger portion of these people's income to pay it.
Ryan's fiscal ideas are scary. What's even scarier are his ideas on social policy.
As a Republican, Ryan is virulently pro-life. That's no surprise. What's scary is the degree to which he takes this stance. Ryan opposes all abortions, even those being performed as a result of rape or incest. But he wants to give states the right to prosecute women who have abortions. He voted for the "Sanctity of Life" Act, which would have given personhood, as well as Constitutional rights and privileges, to fertilized eggs. He has consistently voted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood and Title X family planning programs. And he has resisted efforts to give over-the-counter status to emergency contraception. In short, in his pro-life stance alone, Paul Ryan seeks to set women back 100 years. He wants to bring women back to a time of being "barefoot and pregnant." He wants to deny them vital information which could help them make an informed choice about when or if to start a family. And he wants to deny them easy access to reliable contraception. That's scary.
And then there's Ryan's apparent dislike of gays and transgender people. He voted against the Matthew Shepard Act, which extends the definition of "hate crime" to include crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation or sexual identity. He is opposed to same-sex marriage (he favors a constitutional ban), opposed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and he is opposed to allowing gay couples to adopt.
Finally, there's Ryan's questionable stance on free-speech issues. He favors cutting funding for National Public Radio and passing a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning. That issue was settled in 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared it an act of free speech. So, the question is, does Ryan oppose free speech? Or does he only oppose speech that conflicts with his own, narrow view of the world?
In some ways, Romney's choice of Ryan is smart, just like everything else he's done during this campaign. Ryan is young (he's 42). He's photogenic. He's certainly got the conservative "bonafides" to please just about everyone in his party. And his home state doesn't hurt matters, either. Wisconsin is a largely Democratic state. By picking Ryan, I'm sure Romney is hoping to make inroads there for the GOP.
So why will Romney ultimately regret choosing Ryan? Because Ryan's views are far outside the mainstream of the vast majority of Americans, who tend to gravitate toward the political middle. Ryan's views appeal to the most hardcore segments of his party, the "Tea Party Republicans," is you will. But I don't think they represent the views of the vast majority of the electorate. I don't think they appeal even to the majority of his own party. And being such an extremist on so many issues will only serve to alienate the all-important "swing voter."
Romney has spent a large portion of this election trying to paint himself as a more moderate Republican, someone who can govern successfully across party lines. Romney's record as governor of Massachussetts would seem to indicate that he's capable of governing from the middle.
That's why the choice of Ryan is such a mystery. Paul Ryan is an extremist. No doubt about it. I would hesitate to put him one step away from the presidency. and I think (at least I hope) the majority of voters would feel the same way. I believe, in the end, that this might be a case of Mitt Romney, "the smart candidate," finally outsmarting himself.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
What has happened to freedom of religion?
Several news stories in the past few weeks have led me to wonder if we still cherish the idea of freedom of religion in this country. Do we still believe that every person, no matter where they come from, has a right to practice their religion as they see fit, as a matter of conscience (or to not practice religion at all)? Or have we bought into the false idea that America was founded as a "Christian nation," where only Christians are allowed to practice openly and freely?
Of course, what started all this was the now-infamous interview with the Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A, in which he dared to state that his company supported the "biblical view of marriage." (translation: His company is against gay marriage.) Faster than you could say "waffle fries," the interview had gone viral, thanks to social media, and had become a cause celebre for people on both sides, those who support gay rights, including the right to marry, and those who don't. Lost in all the shouting was what Cathy actually said.
Cathy said his company supports the "biblical view" of marriage. He did not say that his company discriminates against employees because of their orientation. He did not say that he would fire an otherwise exemplary employee if he found out he or she was gay. Only that his company supported what is becoming an increasingly unpopular view. And really, is Chick-Fil-A's stance really that much of a shock to ANYONE? The company has always presented itself as being run according to Christian principles. They've always been closed on Sunday, in observation of the Sabbath, for instance. So why are people now outraged that they actually took a stand based on those principles?
To be clear, I am a supporter of equality for gays, including the right to marry. I detest discrimination in any form. But as long as Chick-Fil-A isn't engaging in discrimination of any kind against gays or anyone else, they have a right to run their business as they see fit, and according to whatever principles they choose. Don't like it? You have the right not to go there.
What I find even more disturbing than the overblown hype over Chick-Fil-A is the outright hypocrisy and false piety of its supporters. Thousands turned out for a recent "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" organized by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. But as someone rightly pointed out, where are these same people when volunteers are needed for the local soup kitchen or the homeless shelter? I'll tell you where. Safely tucked into their nice homes in their nice neighborhoods pretending the bad stuff doesn't exist. These "fair-weather" Christians don't actually want to get down in the trenches, as Jesus frequently did when he ate with sinners and tax collectors. They're happy to flaunt their faith when it's easiest, when all it takes is buying a chicken sandwich. Sad.
Another story that makes me question our commitment to freedom of religion falls a little closer to home for me, since it takes place in Tennessee, just a couple of hours from my old hometown of Jackson.
It was reported last week that Grace Baptist Church of Murfreesboro had erected a display of 13 white crosses in a field across from the church and next door to the new Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Mack Richards, a member of Middle Tennessee Baptist Church who built the crosses for his friend, Bobby Francis, a member at Grace, said the display was conducted to "make a statement to the Muslims about how we felt about our religion, our Christianity."
"We wanted them to see the crosses and know how we felt about things," Richards said.
The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been beset by controversy since it was first proposed in 2010. Among other problems, the construction site has been vandalized several times, there was an arson attempt involving the construction equipment and it was the subject of a bomb threat called in on the anniversary of Sept. 11. It has also been embroiled in a court hearing in which opponents tried to claim that Islam wasn't a religion.
Fortunately, the center is set to open some time this week pending final inspections and the issuing of a certificate of occupancy. But all the hullabaloo over the center only confirms for me what I have believed for years: Some Christians can be bullies. Some are downright scary.
Americans like to brag that we are the most free nation on earth. That's a lie. The truth is, we want freedom only for ourselves and for those who think like us. The first time we encounter someone who challenges our nice, safe view of the world, whether they be gay, Muslim, whatever, we want to shut them down. We want to shut them up so they don't challenge our predetermined view of the world.
This isn't how freedom is supposed to work. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean that we have a right to say what we please. Nor does freedom of speech mean only those who agree with us have a right to be heard. True freedom of speech means that everyone has a right to be heard, even those whose thoughts and opinions make our blood boil. You can react any way you want to those you disagree with (within the law). You can yell. You can argue. You can walk away. What you can't do under the First Amendment is shut them up.
Likewise, freedom of religion doesn't just guarantee freedom for Christians. Freedom of religion means we have the right to worship any way we choose and in accordance with our own conscience. We can be Christian. We can be Muslim. We can be Jewish or pagan or Sikh. Heck, even Satanists are protected under freedom of religion. We even have the right to not believe or not worship at all, if that's what we choose.
Opponents of the mosque say the cross display is meant to show their new Muslim neighbors "how we feel about our Christianity, how we feel about things." The irony of it all is that through their actions, they are showing that they have little, if any, understanding of what Jesus taught.
Jesus didn't teach hate. He didn't teach intolerance. And he certainly didn't teach violence against others. Jesus preached love. He practiced forgiveness. Look at his actions, and you'll see that he spent most of his time communing with those others considered sinners and outcasts. Jesus didn't preach that he or his followers were above, or even any better than, others. Instead, he taught that to be first, you must be last. That to be great, you must serve others. I daresay if Jesus were here right now and saw what his "followers" in Murfreesboro were doing, he would be appalled, ashamed at how his message of love and forgiveness had been corrupted.
Members of Grace Baptist won't voice it. But they've bought into the idea that all Muslims are extremists, that Islam is a religion of terrorists. What they're forgetting is that every religion has its extremists, even Christianity. Look at our history, and you'll see that Christianity has plenty of blood on its hands. From the Crusades to the Inquisition, from those who shoot abortion doctors to Westboro Baptist Church today, each of these is an example of Christian extremism. Most Christians would rightly argue that these examples are far removed from the norm, that they represent just a tiny portion of Christians today. They would rightly argue that it's unfair to judge an entire religion based on the acts of a few. Well, the same thing is true of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims today are peaceful people. They're not out to "kill the infidel," and those who are represent the tiniest possible portion of Islam's 1 billion followers worldwide. Yet, members of Grace Baptist stand ready to pass judgment on an entire faith based on the acts of a few? They want to judge Muslims in the harshest possible light, in a way they themselves would not want to be judged?
This is wrong. It is bigotry based on misguided fear and ignorance. It goes against Jesus' teachings on "Loving thy neighbor." And it violates the spirit and the intent of the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of religion. These people want to say they are standing up for their faith. The reality is, their actions show they are anything but Christian.
Of course, what started all this was the now-infamous interview with the Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A, in which he dared to state that his company supported the "biblical view of marriage." (translation: His company is against gay marriage.) Faster than you could say "waffle fries," the interview had gone viral, thanks to social media, and had become a cause celebre for people on both sides, those who support gay rights, including the right to marry, and those who don't. Lost in all the shouting was what Cathy actually said.
Cathy said his company supports the "biblical view" of marriage. He did not say that his company discriminates against employees because of their orientation. He did not say that he would fire an otherwise exemplary employee if he found out he or she was gay. Only that his company supported what is becoming an increasingly unpopular view. And really, is Chick-Fil-A's stance really that much of a shock to ANYONE? The company has always presented itself as being run according to Christian principles. They've always been closed on Sunday, in observation of the Sabbath, for instance. So why are people now outraged that they actually took a stand based on those principles?
To be clear, I am a supporter of equality for gays, including the right to marry. I detest discrimination in any form. But as long as Chick-Fil-A isn't engaging in discrimination of any kind against gays or anyone else, they have a right to run their business as they see fit, and according to whatever principles they choose. Don't like it? You have the right not to go there.
What I find even more disturbing than the overblown hype over Chick-Fil-A is the outright hypocrisy and false piety of its supporters. Thousands turned out for a recent "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" organized by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. But as someone rightly pointed out, where are these same people when volunteers are needed for the local soup kitchen or the homeless shelter? I'll tell you where. Safely tucked into their nice homes in their nice neighborhoods pretending the bad stuff doesn't exist. These "fair-weather" Christians don't actually want to get down in the trenches, as Jesus frequently did when he ate with sinners and tax collectors. They're happy to flaunt their faith when it's easiest, when all it takes is buying a chicken sandwich. Sad.
Another story that makes me question our commitment to freedom of religion falls a little closer to home for me, since it takes place in Tennessee, just a couple of hours from my old hometown of Jackson.
It was reported last week that Grace Baptist Church of Murfreesboro had erected a display of 13 white crosses in a field across from the church and next door to the new Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Mack Richards, a member of Middle Tennessee Baptist Church who built the crosses for his friend, Bobby Francis, a member at Grace, said the display was conducted to "make a statement to the Muslims about how we felt about our religion, our Christianity."
"We wanted them to see the crosses and know how we felt about things," Richards said.
The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been beset by controversy since it was first proposed in 2010. Among other problems, the construction site has been vandalized several times, there was an arson attempt involving the construction equipment and it was the subject of a bomb threat called in on the anniversary of Sept. 11. It has also been embroiled in a court hearing in which opponents tried to claim that Islam wasn't a religion.
Fortunately, the center is set to open some time this week pending final inspections and the issuing of a certificate of occupancy. But all the hullabaloo over the center only confirms for me what I have believed for years: Some Christians can be bullies. Some are downright scary.
Americans like to brag that we are the most free nation on earth. That's a lie. The truth is, we want freedom only for ourselves and for those who think like us. The first time we encounter someone who challenges our nice, safe view of the world, whether they be gay, Muslim, whatever, we want to shut them down. We want to shut them up so they don't challenge our predetermined view of the world.
This isn't how freedom is supposed to work. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean that we have a right to say what we please. Nor does freedom of speech mean only those who agree with us have a right to be heard. True freedom of speech means that everyone has a right to be heard, even those whose thoughts and opinions make our blood boil. You can react any way you want to those you disagree with (within the law). You can yell. You can argue. You can walk away. What you can't do under the First Amendment is shut them up.
Likewise, freedom of religion doesn't just guarantee freedom for Christians. Freedom of religion means we have the right to worship any way we choose and in accordance with our own conscience. We can be Christian. We can be Muslim. We can be Jewish or pagan or Sikh. Heck, even Satanists are protected under freedom of religion. We even have the right to not believe or not worship at all, if that's what we choose.
Opponents of the mosque say the cross display is meant to show their new Muslim neighbors "how we feel about our Christianity, how we feel about things." The irony of it all is that through their actions, they are showing that they have little, if any, understanding of what Jesus taught.
Jesus didn't teach hate. He didn't teach intolerance. And he certainly didn't teach violence against others. Jesus preached love. He practiced forgiveness. Look at his actions, and you'll see that he spent most of his time communing with those others considered sinners and outcasts. Jesus didn't preach that he or his followers were above, or even any better than, others. Instead, he taught that to be first, you must be last. That to be great, you must serve others. I daresay if Jesus were here right now and saw what his "followers" in Murfreesboro were doing, he would be appalled, ashamed at how his message of love and forgiveness had been corrupted.
Members of Grace Baptist won't voice it. But they've bought into the idea that all Muslims are extremists, that Islam is a religion of terrorists. What they're forgetting is that every religion has its extremists, even Christianity. Look at our history, and you'll see that Christianity has plenty of blood on its hands. From the Crusades to the Inquisition, from those who shoot abortion doctors to Westboro Baptist Church today, each of these is an example of Christian extremism. Most Christians would rightly argue that these examples are far removed from the norm, that they represent just a tiny portion of Christians today. They would rightly argue that it's unfair to judge an entire religion based on the acts of a few. Well, the same thing is true of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims today are peaceful people. They're not out to "kill the infidel," and those who are represent the tiniest possible portion of Islam's 1 billion followers worldwide. Yet, members of Grace Baptist stand ready to pass judgment on an entire faith based on the acts of a few? They want to judge Muslims in the harshest possible light, in a way they themselves would not want to be judged?
This is wrong. It is bigotry based on misguided fear and ignorance. It goes against Jesus' teachings on "Loving thy neighbor." And it violates the spirit and the intent of the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of religion. These people want to say they are standing up for their faith. The reality is, their actions show they are anything but Christian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)